"There is no authority for the bizarre proposition that the accused has to submit to a compelled mental health examination before he gives notice of a mental defense," she wrote.

It wasn't clear whether the Army would agree to those conditions. The sides are expected to argue the issue before the judge on Thursday.

The court filings provided to the AP are supposed to be public, according to lawyers who specialize in military law. However, in this and other courts-martial, Joint Base Lewis-McChord has refused to provide them to reporters, leaving civilian defense attorneys as the only source for records that can be key to the outcome of cases.

Among other issues raised in the documents is the date for Bales' court martial. Prosecutors are arguing to set the trial quickly - for June 10 - because many witnesses remain in a volatile part of Afghanistan. Two possible witnesses have already been killed in separate and unrelated attacks, they noted, and as American troops withdraw, access to those witnesses is only going to get tougher and more dangerous.

"Simply stated, with each day that passes, the government's right to a fair trial is further jeopardized," they wrote.

Scanlan called that unrealistic, given how much time the defense team needs to review more than 30,000 pages of discovery materials, and find and interview witnesses - not to mention getting their own client to open up. The defense has suggested a May 2014 trial date.

"Without adequate time to develop the relationship of trust required for effective representation in a capital case, counsel may never learn or be able to present the most crucial facts about the accused, facts without which any possible understanding of his actions is impossible," she wrote.

She noted that Bales' case was formally referred to a court martial just last month. For the last five U.S. courts martial where the death penalty was a possible punishment, the average elapsed time from date of referral to date of trial was one year and eight months, she wrote. Setting Bales' trial for this June would be a record pace, she suggested, and would risk harming the quality of his legal defense.

The documents also show that Bales' lawyers requested the appointment of a neuropsychologist to the defense team after a forensic psychiatrist who had already been appointed, Dr. Thomas Grieger, reported that he didn't have the expertise to evaluate Bales for traumatic brain injury. The Army refused, saying the defense hadn't shown that such an appointment was necessary.